A Report Card on Provider Report Cards: Current Status of the Health Care Transparency Movement
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Public reporting of provider performance can assist consumers in their choice of providers and stimulate providers to improve quality. Reporting of quality measures is supported by advocates of health care reform across the political spectrum.
To assess the availability, credibility and applicability of existing public reports of hospital and physician quality, with comparisons across geographic areas.
Information pertaining to 263 public reports in 21 geographic areas was collected through reviews of websites and telephone and in-person interviews, and used to construct indicators of public reporting status. Interview data collected in 14 of these areas were used to assess recent changes in reporting and their implications.
Interviewees included staff of state and local associations, health plan representatives and leaders of local health care alliances.
There were more reports of hospital performance (161) than of physician performance (103) in the study areas. More reports included measures derived from claims data (mean, 7.2 hospital reports and 3.3 physician reports per area) than from medical records data. Typically, reports on physician performance contained measures of chronic illness treatment constructed at the medical group level, with diabetes measures the most common (mean number per non-health plan report, 2.3). Patient experience measures were available in more hospital reports (mean number of reports, 1.2) than physician reports (mean, 0.7). Despite the availability of national hospital reports and reports sponsored by national health plans, from a consumer standpoint the status of public reporting depended greatly on where one lived and health plan membership.
Current public reports, and especially reports of physician quality of care, have significant limitations from both consumer and provider perspectives. The present approach to reporting is being challenged by the development of new information sources for consumers, and consumer and provider demands for more current information.
- Bernstein AB, Gauthier AK. Choices in health care: what are they and what are they worth? Med Care Res Rev. 1999;56(Supplemental: Power of Choice):5–23.
- Werner RM, Asch DA. The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. J Am Med Assoc. 2005;293(10):1239–44. CrossRef
- Rothberg MB, Morsi E, Benjamin EM, Pekow PS, Lindenauer PK. Choosing the best hospital: the limitations of public quality reporting. Health Aff. 2008;27(6):1680–7. CrossRef
- Berwick DM, James B, Coye MJ. Connections between quality measurement and improvement. Med Care. 2003;3(41):I30–8.
- Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Tusler M. Does publicizing hospital performance stimulate quality improvement efforts? Health Aff. 2003;22(2):84–94. CrossRef
- Galvin R, Milstein A. Large employers’ new strategies in health care. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:939–42. CrossRef
- Kizer KW. Establishing health care performance standards in an era of consumerism. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;286(10):1213–7. CrossRef
- Department of Health and Human Services. Press Release. HHS secretary awards health leaders with special distinction for improving quality and value of health care. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/02/20080201a.html. Accessed June 15, 2010. 2008.
- Painter, Lavizzo-Mourey. Grantwatch commentary: aligning forces for quality, a program to improve health and health care in communities across the United States. Health Aff. 2008;27:1461–4. CrossRef
- Fung CH, Lim Y-W, Mattke S, Damberg C, Shekelle PG. Systematic review: the evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:111–23.
- Harris KM, Buntin MB. Choosing a health care provider: The role of quality information. Research Synthesis Report No. 14. Princeton, NJ: The Synthesis Project. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2008.
- Miller TP, Brennan TA, Milstein A. How can we make more progress in measuring physicians’ performance to improve the value of care? Health Aff. 28(5):1429–1437.
- Dutta-Bergman M. Trusted online sources of health information: differences in demographics, health beliefs, and health-information orientation. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5(3):e21. CrossRef
- Lubalin JS, Harris-Kojetin L. What do consumers want and need to know in marking health care choices? Med Care Res Rev. 1999;56(Supplemental: Power Choice):67–102. CrossRef
- Alexander, Christianson, Hearld, Hurley, and Scanlon. Challenges of Capacity Building in Multi-sector Community Health Alliances. Health Education and Behavior. In press.
- Department of Health and Human Services. About hospital compare. http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov/Hospital/Search/Welcome.asp?version=default&browser=IE%7C7%7CWindows+Vista&language=English&defaultstatus=0&pagelist=Home. Accessed June 15, 2010.
- The Leapfrog Group. The leapfrog group fact sheet. http://www.leapfroggroup.org/about_us/leapfrog-factsheet. Accessed June 15, 2010; 2009.
- Tu HT, Hargraves JL. Seeking health care information: Most consumers still on the sidelines. Issue Brief No. 61. Washington, DC: Center for Studying Health System Change; 2003.
- Fox S. Online health search 2006. (Pew Internet Project: October 29, 2006). http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/Online-Health-Search-2006.aspx. Accessed June 15, 2010; 2006.
- Department of Health and Human Services, Health Information Technology For the Future of Health and Care. Regulations and Guidance. Meaningful Use. http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=1496&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=1&mode=2&in_hi_userid=10741&cached=true. Accessed June 15, 2010.
- Kowalczyk L. Looking for Dr. Right; With more and more websites rating physicians, the question is: Can you trust them? Boston Globe. 2009;(June 8): G6.
- Freudenheim M. Noted rater or restaurants brings its touch to medicine. The New York Times. February 16; 2009.
- Freudenheim M. Zagat turns focus to medicine. New York Times, February 16, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/business/worldbusiness/16iht-16zagat.20207252.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=zagat&st=cse. Accessed June 15, 2010
- Scholle SH, Roski J, Dunn DL, Adams JL, Dugan DP, Pawlson LG, Kerr EA. Availability of data measuring physician quality performance. Am J Manage Care. 2009;15(1):67–72.
- Hofer TP, Hayard RA, Greenfield S, Wagner EH, Kaplan SH, Manning WG. The unreliability of individual physician ‘report cards’ for assessing the costs and quality of care of a chronic disease. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;281(22):2098–105. CrossRef
- Choe HM, Bernstein SJ, Standiford CJ, Hayward RA. New diabetes HEDIS blood pressure quality measure: potential for overtreatment. Am J Manage Care. 2010;16(1):19–24.
- Shubrook JH, Snow RJ, McGill SL, Brannan GD. “All-or-none” (bundled) process and outcome indicators of diabetes care. Am J Manage Care. 2010;16(1):25–a33.
- A Report Card on Provider Report Cards: Current Status of the Health Care Transparency Movement
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Volume 25, Issue 11 , pp 1235-1241
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- public reporting
- provider performance
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, MMC 729, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA
- 2. Department of Health Policy & Administration, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
- 3. Department of Management and Policy, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA